Decoding issues across the kitchen table.

Times foreign-policy editorials are written for more than a Washington audience.

Perhaps it's a grand illusion, but those of us who specialize in foreign policy issues at The New York Times editorial board believe our readers still care about international problems, despite the end of the Cold War. The volume of mail and the passion of many letters and calls support that belief.

But the absence of a great ideological and political rivalry affecting the life of every American clearly puts an increased premium on identifying compelling issues and writing about them in ways that will inform, provoke, and engage readers.

In writing and editing editorials, I look for ways to make foreign issues accessible and relevant to our readers. While we enjoy an audience of interested parties in Washington and foreign capitals, and often aim our editorials to influence the decisions and actions of government leaders, the Times' editorial page fails the general reader if it assumes everyone follows international developments with the same interest as the diplomatic corps.

Decoding foreign issues is essential to producing clear, incisive editorials. I try, not always successfully, to ban foreign policy jargon from our editorials - words like bilateral, multilateral, deployment, communique. These are stop signs for readers: As soon as they see them, they stop reading.

Writing in a conversational style also is helpful. I like to feel we're talking to a reader across the kitchen table, not lecturing someone in an auditorium. For instance, if we're writing about Russia, which I covered as a Moscow correspondent from 1985 to 1988, I look for an anecdote or personality to start the piece. The point has to be sharply defined high in the editorial, but that doesn't preclude an opening paragraph that draws in readers with a story or telling episode.

Another goal for me is to link editorials to questions that matter to Americans, rather than writing abstractly about foreign issues. The 1996 Russian presidential election is important to Russia and its neighbors, but the outcome also will have major consequences in Washington. The budget debate and even the American presidential campaign this year will be influenced by the Russian vote. So while some of our editorials on Russia focus on developments there and contain recommendations for Russian politicians, we try to spell out the potential implications for Americans.

I think our readers expect us to champion the rights of oppressed peoples, and I have witnessed many cases where our editorials played a part in nudging or shaming dictators away from repressive policies. Nothing is more satisfying for an editorial writer.

I've found that the more passion one of us brings to an issue, the more persuasive and readable the editorial is apt to be. Some foreign editorials work best when they are written from the heart.

The impact of American newspaper editorials on foreign subjects can be magnified abroad. The noise level in Washington is so high these days that commanding attention often is difficult, but the voice of an American newspaper can still speak loudly in foreign capitals.

We have had several instances in recent months when an editorial condemning a particular policy by a specific government, including limitations on press freedom in Argentina or Rumania, was followed by an immediate change of direction in that country. I'd like to think our piece played a part.

The day of lead editorials on strategic arms issues and East/West confrontations may be gone, but the discussion of foreign policy still holds a vital place on the editorial page. If anything, readers can use more help to unscramble the complexities of a changing world than they did when issues and answers were more familiar.

Philip Taubman is assistant editorial page editor for The New York Times.